I'm new to the community. I've had to share my opinion now, because this issue become pretty annoying for me over the time. I'm using Calibre for a long time. It's a great tool.

But I really can't understand, why the developers aren't integrating any auto-update functionality. I'm macOS user and nearly every relevant app has it's updater. It saves a lot of time to keep up-2-date. No need for investing 3-5 extra minutes on waiting, overwriting, keeping the eyes on process bars and confirm every little step.

Every time I put new epubs on my Kobo, Calibre is offering me a new release. However, I think it's good to get the latest issues fixed and get the newest features. But I don't have time to read the change log, if those infos are located on a different location at the website. In addition to that, I don't know what my current version number is installed. I need to check this – every single time – to keep track on all the changes and the "value" of an update.

You would have to write an auto-updater yourself in Python and integrate it with Calibre and submit the code for approval. Otherwise it won't happen. Remember, Calibre is made to be compatible with Windows, OSX, and Linux.

I'm new to the community. I've had to share my opinion now, because this issue become pretty annoying for me over the time. I'm using Calibre for a long time. It's a great tool.

But I really can't understand, why the developers aren't integrating any auto-update functionality. I'm macOS user and nearly every relevant app has it's updater. It saves a lot of time to keep up-2-date. No need for investing 3-5 extra minutes on waiting, overwriting, keeping the eyes on process bars and confirm every little step.

Every time I put new epubs on my Kobo, Calibre is offering me a new release. However, I think it's good to get the latest issues fixed and get the newest features. But I don't have time to read the change log, if those infos are located on a different location at the website. In addition to that, I don't know what my current version number is installed. I need to check this – every single time – to keep track on all the changes and the "value" of an update.

I don't know, what I have to think about this argument on the FAQ page.

I disagree.

You can, as long as you keep within Mobileread guidelines (link at the bottom of most forums).

There is no real need if it WAS working for you.
Updates most frequently have provisions for New Device models, updates for Newspaper scrapes.
Less frequently, new or revised features.
And the rare Bug Fix (Kovid is good )

I suspect that there is a minor mental disorder that leads to a compulsion to update. Modern technology has most likely increased the prevalence.

Does this disorder have a name?

For affected it is impossible to ignore a notification that a new version is available. I handle my problems in this area by turning off the notification. If I see the notification I update. At once! However for more severe cases I suspect that is not possible to turn off the notification.

I'm new to the community. I've had to share my opinion now, because this issue become pretty annoying for me over the time. I'm using Calibre for a long time. It's a great tool.

Welcome to Mobileread and the calibre forum. We are always glad to have new members, ideas and input. I hope you stay around and share with new users of calibre your experience.

Moderator NoticeFYI, At the top of each of the sub-forums within the calibre forum you will see sticky posts. These posts often have information, tips, and warnings in reference to using calibre. At the top of the Development forum there is a sticky post titled, "PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING - Purpose of Development subforum." This post provides guidelines for posting in the Development forum. Since this post doesn't meet the guidelines set up in this sticky post I am moving the discussion to the main calibre forum.

But I really can't understand, why the developers aren't integrating any auto-update functionality. I'm macOS user and nearly every relevant app has it's updater. It saves a lot of time to keep up-2-date. No need for investing 3-5 extra minutes on waiting, overwriting, keeping the eyes on process bars and confirm every little step.

I'm guessing it comes down to how many hours there are in a day. To implement auto-update in Calibre, you would probably have to write code for one or two Mac versions, three or four Windows versions and a zillion Linux distributions (I exaggerate slightly). Personally I'm amazed at how often Calibre is updated, but I usually bypass about three or four of these before worrying about it. In Linux Mint it's just a matter of clicking on the Update link, cutting and pasting the commands into the terminal, running them and – voila', done – the whole process takes about three minutes. I like having control over it. I use the binary updates because Linux Mint (especially for the older version I use on my Desktop computer) is usually well behind the curve. If I was using the version in my Linux Mint 17.1 repository, I would be using 1.25 at this point, instead of 3.17.

I'm guessing it comes down to how many hours there are in a day. To implement auto-update in Calibre, you would probably have to write code for one or two Mac versions, three or four Windows versions and a zillion Linux distributions (I exaggerate slightly).

The FAQ item lists a bunch of reasons. Among them is one very practical one:

Quote:

calibre downloads currently use about 100TB of bandwidth a month. Implementing automatic updates would greatly increase that and end up costing thousands of dollars a month, which someone has to pay.

Calibre is a large program. And a free one. It's unrealistic and selfish to expect Kovid to foot the bill for a whole lot of bandwidth when it's really not necessary.

Moderator NoticeMember gbm (aka bernie) provided the best answer in post #3 -- a link to a thread that has not one, but two user contributed OSX auto-installers for calibre. IMO that's all that needs saying.

As well as OSX, there are auto-installers for Linux and Windows in the Related Tools subforum.

With all respect to someone who have a question, I often wonder why people don't like to look first for possible answers before asking a question (something I learned decades ago).
All insides and explanations can easily found here (google search: auto update calibre site:mobileread.com) as it was discussed quite regular here with always the same arguments. Kovid gave this specific answer since years. As most of us know, that's why information's usually find a place in calibre's FAQ.

I wait for moment someone ask this:
"Who do I need to ask for using some of my server bandwidth capacity for e.g. an automatic update feature for free for supporting calibre?"

An auto-update feature for Calibre would most likely greatly increase bandwidth use to distribute new copies of Calibre. It is not reasonable to demand that the author of a free program should have to pay for this. It could even be argued that third party auto-update software may actually harm the author financially.

One way to handle this might be to provide Calibre updates as diffs from previous versions. So only changed parts have to be distributed. Similar to the source distribution.

Another way to handle this in a more "author friendly" third party auto-updater could be to distribute new copies using peer-to-peer technology. Something similar to the bit-torrent protocol. A P2P updater could distribute the new update first to computers that in turn redistribute the update to others. Users that refuse or are unable to upload updates to others will receive the update last, or not at all if the process takes so long that an even newer version has become available and/or if too few clients are willing to redistribute the update to others.

Perhaps this forum should discourage use of third party updaters that have the potential to harm the author, if they become popular? And encourage development of an "author friendly" updater? There is no need to start from scratch. There are already several open source projects for p2p file-sharing that might be re-purposed...

If you don't mind... please, in case of developing something like this... keep it optional. I'm the opposite side of the OP. I totally loathe auto-updates. I want control, I want to know what the update includes and decide if I want to download it. I can even want to patch it after downloaded, and not start it till it's patched (a real situation), so I have to wait till I have enough time for doing that.

And I have deactivaded the "P2P" for download updates in Windows 10, and the Windows Update service except in some specific situations.